I find it amazing that information which can be easily checked is often completely missed in Wikipedia, and in it's place are bizarre assumptions. There are tons of examples of this, but I thought that this one deserved special attention.

"Notice that the version number jumps from Darwin 1.4 to 5. The two versioning systems have different stories. Initially, Apple established the 1.x designation, in order for Darwin version numbers to correspond to the Mac OS X Server 1.x version numbers. However, the Mac OS Server 1.x saw limited use and that versioning practice was discontinued even before Mac OS X was widely introduced. The Darwin 5.x designations, on the other hand, continue the NEXTSTEP versioning (which left off at NEXTSTEP 3.3, followed by OPENSTEP (which later became Darwin), at 4.2). Since the prepackaged "Darwin 1.x" distribution was actually created based on the Darwin 4 code underlying the Mac OS X, Apple decided to ease confusion and to continue with the version numbers it inherited when it bought NEXTSTEP. The command uname -r in Terminal will show the Darwin version number, and the command uname -v will show the XNU build version string, which includes the Darwin version number."

"Mac OS X's primary programming environment is essentially OpenStep (with certain additions such as XML property lists and URL classes for Internet connections) with Mac OS X ports of the development libraries and tools, now called Cocoa. However, Mac OS X diverges from the OpenStep specification to the point that it is now closer to NeXTSTEP as a product. Mac OS X 10.0 could be considered NeXTSTEP 5. Apple's internal versioning of Darwin, the open source code comprising the core OS and kernel of Mac OS X, follows this numbering."

This is truly amazing. Without anything other than seeing the number 5, these people assumed it was done because 5 must have followed the 4 from OPENSTEP 4.x. Of course, there were version 5 releases that followed OPENSTEP 4.2, they were Rhapsody 5.0 through 5.6.

So where did this 5 come from in the Darwin version numbering system?

Apple wrote a letter and sent it to everyone on their developer lists explaining the reasons behind the change in Darwin version numbers and what they stood for.

The jump in version numbers from Darwin 1.4.1 to 5.1 with the release of Mac OS X v10.1.1 was designed to tie Darwin to the Mac OS X version and build numbering system. For those who don't know about the build numbering system, every version of Mac OS X has a unique beginning build number, which identifies what whole version of Mac OS X it is part of. Mac OS X v10.0 had build numbers starting with 4, 10.1 had build numbers starting with 5, 10.2 had build numbers starting with 6, 10.3 had build numbers starting with 7, 10.4 had build numbers starting with 8, and 10.5 has build numbers starting with 9. The point release number in the Darwin version is always the same as the second point number in the Mac OS X version.

In the case of Mac OS X v10.1.1 (the version where all this started), this was build 5M28 and the 10.1.1 release, which is where 5.1 is derived from.

Further, Darwin made it's first appearance in Mac OS X Developer Preview 1, but didn't identify itself as such until Mac OS X Developer Preview 3 (in DP1 and DP2 the uname information is given as Mac OS 10, in DP3 Darwin 1.0 is given). Darwin was not used in Mac OS X Server 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.2 or 1.2v3, all of those are based on Rhapsody which still included encumbered BSD code that was replaced with FreeBSD elements in Darwin.

None of this is a secret, so why in the world are people putting such disinformation up on Wikipedia if they really don't know what they are talking about?

In the end, this should stand as a shining example of why you should never take anything put up on Wikipedia at face value. Everything on there should be cross checked before assuming it is accurate._________________Rhapsody Resource Page

I find it amazing that information which can be easily checked is often completely missed in Wikipedia, and in it's place are bizarre assumptions. There are tons of examples of this, but I thought that this one deserved special attention.

Yes, it's appalling. And there are still people who will take the Web site without any salt (I know two such people, and I keep trying to get them to understand).

"Notice that the version number jumps from Darwin 1.4 to 5. The two versioning systems have different stories. Initially, Apple established the 1.x designation, in order for Darwin version numbers to correspond to the Mac OS X Server 1.x version numbers. However, the Mac OS Server 1.x saw limited use and that versioning practice was discontinued even before Mac OS X was widely introduced. The Darwin 5.x designations, on the other hand, continue the NEXTSTEP versioning (which left off at NEXTSTEP 3.3, followed by OPENSTEP (which later became Darwin), at 4.2). Since the prepackaged "Darwin 1.x" distribution was actually created based on the Darwin 4 code underlying the Mac OS X, Apple decided to ease confusion and to continue with the version numbers it inherited when it bought NEXTSTEP. The command uname -r in Terminal will show the Darwin version number, and the command uname -v will show the XNU build version string, which includes the Darwin version number."

"Mac OS X's primary programming environment is essentially OpenStep (with certain additions such as XML property lists and URL classes for Internet connections) with Mac OS X ports of the development libraries and tools, now called Cocoa. However, Mac OS X diverges from the OpenStep specification to the point that it is now closer to NeXTSTEP as a product. Mac OS X 10.0 could be considered NeXTSTEP 5. Apple's internal versioning of Darwin, the open source code comprising the core OS and kernel of Mac OS X, follows this numbering."

This is truly amazing. Without anything other than seeing the number 5, these people assumed it was done because 5 must have followed the 4 from OPENSTEP 4.x. Of course, there were version 5 releases that followed OPENSTEP 4.2, they were Rhapsody 5.0 through 5.6.

Yes, it seems odd to me. I first saw this when I was trying to figure out the version jump (I Googled it, and Wikipedia had the most relevant result), and it didn't make sense to me because of Rhapsody's versioning (and OS X Server 1.x not using Darwin).

RacerX wrote:

So where did this 5 come from in the Darwin version numbering system?

Apple wrote a letter and sent it to everyone on their developer lists explaining the reasons behind the change in Darwin version numbers and what they stood for.

Interesting, I never knew about this. Any chance that the contents of the letter are on the Web?

RacerX wrote:

The jump in version numbers from Darwin 1.4.1 to 5.1 with the release of Mac OS X v10.1.1 was designed to tie Darwin to the Mac OS X version and build numbering system. For those who don't know about the build numbering system, every version of Mac OS X has a unique beginning build number, which identifies what whole version of Mac OS X it is part of. Mac OS X v10.0 had build numbers starting with 4, 10.1 had build numbers starting with 5, 10.2 had build numbers starting with 6, 10.3 had build numbers starting with 7, 10.4 had build numbers starting with 8, and 10.5 has build numbers starting with 9.

I actually never noticed this, as I have only used 10.3 and 10.4.

RacerX wrote:

Further, Darwin made it's first appearance in Mac OS X Developer Preview 1, but didn't identify itself as such until Mac OS X Developer Preview 3 (in DP1 and DP2 the uname information is given as Mac OS 10, in DP3 Darwin 1.0 is given). Darwin was not used in Mac OS X Server 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.2 or 1.2v3, all of those are based on Rhapsody which still included encumbered BSD code that was replaced with FreeBSD elements in Darwin.

I always thought that Darwin first appeared in DP3. Maybe it was because of the more visible changes in that version, that I thought there might have been a very major change in the core. I did know that Darwin wasn't used in Rhapsody, and I did know that it included non-Lite (AKA encumbered) BSD code.

RacerX wrote:

None of this is a secret, so why in the world are people putting such disinformation up on Wikipedia if they really don't know what they are talking about?

You really shouldn't expect that much out of Wikipedia. People just take advantage of the editable nature of it and are too lazy to try to find out the truth, and therefore make up what is (to the uninitiated) truthful-sounding, when it is really rubbish.

RacerX wrote:

In the end, this should stand as a shining example of why you should never take anything put up on Wikipedia at face value. Everything on there should be cross checked before assuming it is accurate.

I actually try to avoid the site whenever I can, but it's very difficult with Google making it one of the top results for anything, and sometimes putting in a positive-sounding and irrelevant summary. For example, try Googling "technetium", and the first result is:

The nice part about Wikipedia is that someone with greater knowledge can sign in and correct inaccuracies like this when they come up, and reference them properly if possible. Wikipedia on a whole is a good thing, but it is only as good as the level of time and effort that people want to put into it.

Interesting, I never knew about this. Any chance that the contents of the letter are on the Web?

I do recall it popping up on a number of mailing lists (like OS X Developers over on the Omni Group site). I can't believe it would be all that hard to find. But this is what I have in my reference materials on the subject...

New Darwin Versioning Scheme

As of Software Update 1 for Mac OS X v10.1, we have moved to a new
numbering policy for the Darwin portions of Mac OS X. It you type
"uname -a" from the command-line, you will see that the Darwin version
number has changed to "5.1" (actually 5.1.0), which better aligns
Darwin's numbering scheme with our internal build processes. The "5"
refers to the major release - "4" was Mac OS X v10.0, and the earlier
numbers represented developer releases. The minor version '1' is
generally the update number, and the final number (e.g, the "0" in
5.1.0) represent 'variants'. For example, under the new scheme, the
Darwin in Mac OS X v10.1 would've been '5.0.0' whereas the Open Source
Darwin version released immediately afterwards (1.4.1) would've been
"5.0.1".

We apologize for any disruption this may cause existing projects, and
hope this change will enable us to provide greater consistency in the
future.

Sincerely,
Ernie Prabhakar

nextchef wrote:

So did you correct it RacerX?

The nice part about Wikipedia is that someone with greater knowledge can sign in and correct inaccuracies like this when they come up, and reference them properly if possible. Wikipedia on a whole is a good thing, but it is only as good as the level of time and effort that people want to put into it.

If it was as straight forward as fixing this type of thing, I would consider it... unfortunately I've seen how the Wiki-elite react to corrections, and frankly it just isn't worth it.

The person who took the time and effort to think up the fictional account that is there now would most likely argue that his version of what is there is correct. And enough people have most likely started taking that as gospel that it would require quite a bit of fighting to get it changed.

But I'll tell ya what... if you want to take on trying to make this change, I'll create a page on my site with the original e-mail explanation from Apple as a reference for you to site.